Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis: The effectiveness and implications of using below-knee or thigh-length graduated compression stockings

Heart & Lung ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Byrne
2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
S G E Barker ◽  
S J Hollingsworth

Objective: Current hospital policy states that all patients should use graduated compression stockings (GCS) for prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Methods: A total of 218 patients on 16 mixed-speciality surgical wards were surveyed on a single 'snapshot' day, for compliance with this policy. Results: Of these patients, 119 (54%) were not wearing GCS. Of the 99 (46%) patients who were wearing GCS, 85 wore below-knee products and 14 wore above-knee products. Incorrect use was far more common with above-knee GCS. Conclusions: Non-compliance appreciably alters the risk of a patient suffering a DVT and leaves hospitals open potentially to litigation. Regular reminders of set hospital policy (and occasional reviews of policy) should help aid compliance. There is a 'natural selection' for below-knee GCS products.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 297-304
Author(s):  
Rhys J Morris

There is a lack of good-quality recent clinical data to support the use of mechanical methods to prevent deep vein thrombosis. Recommendations and meta-analyses have to rely on old data from evaluations of devices that are no longer available, with diagnostic methods that are obsolete. The aim of this narrative review is to examine the reasons why better recent evidence is not available, and how this will affect innovation in mechanical deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Analysis of recent published trials shows great variability in techniques and technologies, which complicates evaluation of the effectiveness of properties of intermittent pneumatic compression, graduated compression stockings, and electrical stimulation devices. Negative controlled trials have become difficult to conduct, and low rates of deep vein thrombosis have left many comparative trials of devices underpowered. There is a risk that if new approaches to enable clinical research are not developed that technological advancement of mechanical prophylaxis will be inhibited.


AORN Journal ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 266
Author(s):  
Sharon A. Van Wicklin ◽  
Karen S. Ward ◽  
Shirley W. Cantrell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document